so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.

Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30.

And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.

Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.

omg please just stop talking... better yet do me a favor, go into Golds gym in NV and walk up to Jay Cutler (5' 9" 275lbs BF is probably around 3-5% during season) and tell him his BMI is way too high and he is not in good physical shape. there's at least 3 things that will happen. he will laugh at you, slap you, or both.

the BMI is an "okay" way at best, to judge the physical fitness of a person who is barely active. but its a HORRIBLE way of judging the physical fitness of an very active person...

so please go away and lets get back on topic...

While you are correct in the fact the BMI is not a good way to measure physical fitness, bringing up a guy who is 5'9" and 275 lb ON THIS SITE as a paragon of fitness and good shape will get you nothing but laughter.

Listen, you started this thread. Don't get pissed when people tel lyou that less weight would be better.

Of course if you take two people who both carry 20 pounds of fat on them, and one of them is really built with bulky muscle, and the other one has no muscle worth mentioning, the BF percentage will look much better on the "built" guy, but it doesn't change the fact that they are both carrying 20 pounds of fat on them.

And for climbing it doesn't matter whether you are carrying 200 pounds of muscle+20 pounds of fat up that wall, or whether you are carrying 180pounds of muscle and 40 pounds of fat. Either way, you are carrying 220 pounds up that wall, most of that built-up muscle is not doing you any good when you are climbing. Your bulky legs will be just as much hindrance as a beer belly.

To give you an example, two strong tall climbers that I personally know, are in 6'2"-6'3" and maybe 135-145lb.

I started this thread with the idea that less weight is better to begin with. my reason for starting this thread is to see if i was wrong and if there are any big pro climbers out there that overcame the size obstacle.

i wasnt getting mad at healyje for telling me less weight is better. i was getting mad at the fact that he told me theres no way i could be 6'1" 220lbs with 10-11%BF. and that im in bad shape because my BMI is too high. as a matter of fact i dont think he ever mentioned anything about less weight being better.

also i was only using Jay Cutler as an example as to how stupid the BMI is.

and with all do respect, your example of there being no difference between a man with 200lbs of muscle and 20lbs of fat and a man with 180lbs of muscle and 40lbs of fat is flawed. im pretty sure that the man with 200lbs of muscle and 20lbs of fat can lift his body weight a hell of a lot easier than the man with 180lbs of muscle and 40lbs of fat.

im not here to discuss mine or anyone else's physical fitness. i do that on other forums. so since healyje is done making a fool of himself can we please get back on topic?

You guys can squawk all you want, but no one 6'1" and over 180 is in anything remotely approaching a "pretty good" shape in a climbing context.

A former top climber of that height who has let themselves go can may be able still be able to crank off some tens of feet of 5.12 or even 5.13, but anything longer than that they're going run out of gas quick and to be lucky to be able to untie the rope when they're done.

and with all do [sic] respect, your example of there being no difference between a man with 200lbs of muscle and 20lbs of fat and a man with 180lbs of muscle and 40lbs of fat is flawed. im pretty sure that the man with 200lbs of muscle and 20lbs of fat can lift his body weight a hell of a lot easier than the man with 180lbs of muscle and 40lbs of fat.

Point 1: Healyj is kind of an idiot.

Point 2: your above quote is misunderstanding what Lena was saying. What she was was that you really don't need THAT much muscle to be an excellent climber. And in fact, once you get into elite level climbing, any extra muscle beyond the bare minimum is going to hinder you. People talk about lockoff strength and leg strength for climbing, but if you can support your own bodyweight (which is not that much strength, compared to elite body building), you'll go a long way climbing.

You guys can squawk all you want, but no one 6'1" and over 180 is in anything remotely approaching a "pretty good" shape in a climbing context.

A former top climber of that height who has let themselves go can may be able still be able to crank off some tens of feet of 5.12 or even 5.13, but anything longer than that they're going run out of gas quick and to be lucky to be able to untie the rope when they're done.

Well, I can provide an anecdote to counter this, but nothing more.

I'm 6' and pretty typically around 185 pounds (give or take 5.) I've climbed well into the 5.13 range with this body type, and bouldered as hard as v9. While this doesn't put me anywhere near the 'pro levels' I would consider that I'm in pretty solid climbing shape and certainly outperforming what you consider to be possible for me.

Yeah, Dean is definitely pretty big. I've ,et him a few times, and I'm 6'7 and 215 lbs, and he is pretty close to my size. And his hands/fingers are giant. Don't know how in the world he got up the Tombstone.

Also, Levente Pinter is a pretty big dude, and he climbs pretty hard and is kind of pro-ish (not really sure).

It's actually not just about BF% . That doesn't matter as much as your pure strength to weight ratio.

Last year i lifted a lot, had a very low bf%.

I got sick for a month, and lost 3kg because I couldn't exercise much. i lost quite a bit of muscle and put on some fat, but i ended up climbed BETTER becausei was significantly lighter

Obviously it's better to be light AND fit, but what im saying is that spraying about your bf% when climbing is barking up the wrong tree. You may be "fit" but for climbing a "fat" light dude is fitter than a muscular heavy dude.

The one benefit i see of starting from a big frame like it sounds like you have is that if you can get your weight down healthily, your tendons and muscles are going to be extremely strong for your new weight.

Hi everybody. I'm 6'3" 300lbs, and I can climb all damn day. Maybe I'll never climb 5.12, or even 5.11 for that matter, but I love climbing, and my rack is WELL worn, so anyone who thinks that big people can't climb can just never stop eating dicks. We'll never be pros, and I'm ALWAYS the biggest guy at the crag, but I guarantee that after you're pumped, I'll still be climbing, so eat me.

Glad you get after it, but the conversation wasn't about large people climbing - it was about being large as a pro. Over the years I've been in and out of shape having swung from (6'0" @) 155 to 200 at various times. I know firsthand exactly how grueling losing the weight and getting back in shape can be having done it a couple of cycles - and how rewarding. For me, above 185 it's a total suckfest where; from 185-175 I can get by on years of experience and technique for 5-6 pitches of [trad] .10 multipitch; 175-165 gets me back in the ballpark putting up some FA roof projects I have going. Below 165 probably isn't going to happen at this age and with the lifestyle my wife and I enjoy.

Bottom line, like running, every pound you lose just makes it that much easier in climbing. It's certainly not mandatory if you're just out for fun, but if you're thinking about turning pro or putting up long, hard multipitch trad FAs then there's simply no choice in the matter - you just have to get into an optimal zone.

Hi everybody. I'm 6'3" 300lbs, and I can climb all damn day. Maybe I'll never climb 5.12, or even 5.11 for that matter, but I love climbing, and my rack is WELL worn, so anyone who thinks that big people can't climb can just never stop eating dicks. We'll never be pros, and I'm ALWAYS the biggest guy at the crag, but I guarantee that after you're pumped, I'll still be climbing, so eat me.

First off, welcome to the forum.

Secondly, I don't think anyone was saying that if you're big you can't climb. It is/was a discussion if any big climbers are professional climbers.

so in the future please dont judge someones physical fitness without seeing them and punching their height and weight into a useless BMI calculator. have a nice day.

Dude, not sure what numbers you punched into that body fat form, but on the BMI form 6'1" @ 220 gives a BMI of 29-30.

And bottom line is it's impossible to be 6'1" @ 220 and not have a percentage of body fat closer to 30 than 10 unless you are an alien with a very different bone and tissue density then the rest of us humans.

Further 6'1" is hardly 'tall' and at that height if you way more than 190 you can't even be considered fit let alone in any kind of shape.

Bro, when I was in the best shape of my life playing college soccer, I was 185 pounds and 6'1''. My BMI still had me listed as overweight, which I guarantee you I was not. BMI is not a good indicator of body fat %, and that especially goes out the window when it's an athletic person you're talking about.

Glad you get after it, but the conversation wasn't about large people climbing - it was about being large as a pro. Over the years I've been in and out of shape having swung from (6'0" @) 155 to 200 at various times. I know firsthand exactly how grueling losing the weight and getting back in shape can be having done it a couple of cycles - and how rewarding. For me, above 185 it's a total suckfest where; from 185-175 I can get by on years of experience and technique for 5-6 pitches of [trad] .10 multipitch; 175-165 gets me back in the ballpark putting up some FA roof projects I have going. Below 165 probably isn't going to happen at this age and with the lifestyle my wife and I enjoy.

Bottom line, like running, every pound you lose just makes it that much easier in climbing. It's certainly not mandatory if you're just out for fun, but if you're thinking about turning pro or putting up long, hard multipitch trad FAs then there's simply no choice in the matter - you just have to get into an optimal zone.

Anyone know how big John Long was during his yosemite days? He always looked pretty huge.

Hi everybody. I'm 6'3" 300lbs, and I can climb all damn day. Maybe I'll never climb 5.12, or even 5.11 for that matter, but I love climbing, and my rack is WELL worn, so anyone who thinks that big people can't climb can just never stop eating dicks. We'll never be pros, and I'm ALWAYS the biggest guy at the crag, but I guarantee that after you're pumped, I'll still be climbing, so eat me.

Glad you get after it, but the conversation wasn't about large people climbing - it was about being large as a pro.

Actually that's what the OP was, then you started making claims about how no decent climber was over such and such a height and weight. You went on to say how if you weighed X number of pounds you couldn't have less than 30% body fat.

healyje wrote:

Over the years I've been in and out of shape having swung from (6'0" @) 155 to 200 at various times. I know firsthand exactly how grueling losing the weight and getting back in shape can be having done it a couple of cycles - and how rewarding.

Good for you. I understand that this is meant to lend authenticity to your statements but this post has nothing to do with you and your weight gain / loss. In fact the OP has nothing to do with your weight.

healyje wrote:

For me, above 185 it's a total suckfest where; from 185-175 I can get by on years of experience and technique for 5-6 pitches of [trad] .10 multipitch; 175-165 gets me back in the ballpark putting up some FA roof projects I have going. Below 165 probably isn't going to happen at this age and with the lifestyle my wife and I enjoy.

That's for you personally. I understand that you personally figured out your optimal weight but please try to keep in mind that everyone is different and your ideal weight isn't going to be everyone eases.

healyje wrote:

Bottom line, like running, every pound you lose just makes it that much easier in climbing. It's certainly not mandatory if you're just out for fun, but if you're thinking about turning pro or putting up long, hard multipitch trad FAs then there's simply no choice in the matter - you just have to get into an optimal zone.

True but just like in running you reach a point of diminished returns in regards to weight and increased performance. Just like in running this 'optimal zone' is different for each person.

If you think being 6'0" and weighing more than 185 for anyone is something other than a suckfest compared to being in decent shape then you're either a) delusional or b) have never been in decent shape.

If you think being 6'0" and weighing more than 185 for anyone is something other than a suckfest compared to being in decent shape then you're either a) delusional or b) have never been in decent shape.

can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?

Alex Honnold and Dean Potter are both 6ft+ and likely under 200lbs.

Long, thin, and graceful seem like postive factors but not every really good or pro climber is built like Ichabod Crain.

There is now way Alex Honnold is 6ft+.

It's really funny how in threads like this, there are certain climbers who might be "bigger," but for that reason whom people claim are HUGE. Klem Loskot, Fred Rhouling, Dean Potter, Chris Sharma, I've seen all of these guys cited to be 200+ lbs. They're not.

You want to talk about large climbers who were climbing at a world class level at their peak? John Dunne, and MAYBE John Long. That's it. They're anomalies.

can anyone give me some names of any professional climbers that are 6'+ 200lb+?

Alex Honnold and Dean Potter are both 6ft+ and likely under 200lbs.

Long, thin, and graceful seem like postive factors but not every really good or pro climber is built like Ichabod Crain.

There is now way Alex Honnold is 6ft+.

It's really funny how in threads like this, there are certain climbers who might be "bigger," but for that reason whom people claim are HUGE. Klem Loskot, Fred Rhouling, Dean Potter, Chris Sharma, I've seen all of these guys cited to be 200+ lbs. They're not.

You want to talk about large climbers who were climbing at a world class level at their peak? John Dunne, and MAYBE John Long. That's it. They're anomalies.

It is hilarious how all these weird rumors about Fred Rouhling went around. "Oh, the grades are only because he's 6'9" with a 7'2" wingspan," I heard, circa 2001.